Assume that there is a claim that Defaul chose the plaintiffs as targets for a specific reason. She allegedly chose them because she believed they were particularly unsophisticated investors who, in fact, had always relied heavily on their investment adviser, one Thomas Jenks. It is clear that Defaul had access to a list of Jenks' clients.

Jenks died after the action was instituted, and the plaintiffs have called his executive assistant, who left under friendly circumstances to found his own firm. The former assistant has testified that he knew most of the 75 plaintiffs and that they were, in fact, rather unsophisticated investors who relied heavily on Jenks.

Defendant then sought to depict the former assistant's testimony as utterly fantastic, pointing out the large amounts of money that most of the plaintiffs had invested in various ventures, those ventures' continuing profitability, and the service of many of the plaintiffs on fund-raising and civic committees throughout the city.

Plaintiffs now seek to admit written instructions that the former assistant left for his successor, which include statements to the effect that most of Jenks' clients were unsophisticated and relied on him heavily. The instructions were written six months before Defaul had the meeting in question with the plaintiffs.

Defendant objects that the instructions are inadmissible hearsay, and do not conform to 801(d)(1)(B). Do you agree?